Legal thoughts, since 2005.

I often write articles and blog posts for other outlets and am going to post a round up here from time to time (but won't include my weekly Daily Record articles in the round up since I re-publish them to this blog in full). Here are my posts and articles from July 2018:

Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Does accessing historical cell site information require a warrant?

Every summer I write my portion of the annual update for “Criminal Law in New York,” a book on substantive New York criminal law that I co-author with Brighton Town Court Judge, Karen Morris. During my research of the criminal cases handed down over the past year, I often come across cases that provide interesting insights on the intersection of criminal law and technology, and then write about them in this column.

This year one of the cases I discovered was People v. Jiles, 158 A.D.3d 75 (4th Dept. 2017), leave to appeal denied, 2018 WL 3811362 (2018). In this case, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first and third degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant and unidentified accomplices were accused of holding four men at gunpoint in an apartment and taking money from them. During the robbery, another person entered the apartment, a struggle ensued, and the victim was shot and killed.

The prosecution had obtained the defendant’s cellphone records for the 4 days leading up to the robbery by means of a court order which was issued upon a showing of less than probable cause pursuant to the federal Stored Communications Act. The prosecution sought to introduce the records at trial to show the defendant’s location during the various times that he’d called the victim in the days preceding the robbery. The defendant moved to suppress the location information, but not the call records, on the grounds that the acquisition of that information constituted a search and thus required a warrant supported by probable cause.

The trial court denied the motion and the records were admitted at trial. One issue on appeal was whether it was necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant in order to access historical cell phone data.

At the outset, the Court outlined the breadth of information that can be obtained from cell phone data: “When citizens go about their lives with cell phones turned on, the phones can electronically register with the nearest cell tower every few seconds whether or not the phones are actively in use, and the business records of service providers can therefore contain information about the location of phones and their users at specific dates and times as the users travel the highways and byways of our state and nation.”

Next, the Court turned to the issue at hand, and in reaching its decision, it emphasized that the location data sought was historical, was kept as a matter of course by his cell phone service provider much like telephone billing records, and was information that the defendant had voluntarily disclosed to his services provider.

The Court explained that because the information was not obtained as a result of direct surveillance by law enforcement, but instead constituted historical data voluntarily provided to his service provider, a third party, that the data fell under the third party exception: “(W)e conclude that the acquisition of the cell site location information was not a search under the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution because defendant's use of the phone constituted a voluntary disclosure of his general location to his service provider, and a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties.”

The Court also noted that “certain other states have afforded cell site location information greater protection under their state constitutions than it is afforded under the federal constitution” but declined to do so in New York, and instead likened location data to telephone billing records, which the New York Court of Appeals has permitted access to in the absence of a warrant. As such the Court concluded that “there is ‘no sufficient reason’ to afford the cell site location information at issue here greater protection under the state constitution than it is afforded under the federal constitution.”

I’m not sure I agree with the Court’s conclusion that this type of data is “voluntarily” disclosed to cell phone service providers, since at the present time, those of us who choose to use cell phones don’t have much of a choice in that regard: service providers collect that data as a matter of course and there’s no mechanism available to opt out. So our hands are essentially tied in that regard.

The Court did address this particular argument at the end of its opinion, noting that “(t)o the extent that ‘cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private’ under these circumstances, their recourse is ‘in the market or the political process…”

Unfortunately, New York residents interested in protecting privacy rights and preventing law enforcement from arbitrarily accessing our minute-by-minute movements in the digital age, the Court’s suggested course of action provides no small comfort - and no immediate recourse - other than refraining from using cell phones altogether. For the vast majority of us, that’s not a feasible option, and thus we’re forced to agree to a full-scale waiver of our privacy rights in exchange for the ability to use a piece of technology that has become an integral part of our daily lives. Not exactly an equitable bargain, if you ask me.

Here is a recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

*****

Top podcasts for lawyers

Podcasts have been around for decades now, but it was only recently that lawyers really began to take notice of them. The “Serial” podcast’s fame helped expand the reach of podcasts, both amongst the general public and lawyers. Since then, podcasts have increased in popularity and many new legal-themed podcasts have emerged.

But with so many law-related podcasts out there, how do you know which ones to listen to? Well, never fear! If you’re interested in legal podcasts, but aren’t sure where to start, then you’re in luck! Here are some great podcasts by and about lawyers that are worth a listen.

First, there’s “Legal Talk Network," a legal podcast network that hosts a ton of great podcasts about an assortment of law-related issues, ranging from running a law firm and legal technology to the latest in legal news.

Next there’s legal technology expert Bob Ambrogi’s new podcast, “LawNext.". In this podcast series, Bob interviews the innovators and entrepreneurs that are “driving what’s next in law.” Bob’s been part of the legal technology space for decades and always provides interesting insight and predictions, so this podcast is well worth a listen.

If a podcast with a legal marketing slant is up your alley, then there are two to consider subscribing to: “Legal Marketing 2.0” and the “LAWsome podcast." Both address a host of issues related to running and marketing a law firm, and provide lots of great legal marketing advice.

You may already be familiar with one of the of the longest running legal podcasts: “This Week in Law." But if not, you’re in for a treat! In this podcast, attorney and legal technology guru Denise Howell and her podcast colleagues and guests discuss the latest issues in technology law, including patents, copyrights, and more.

Another legal tech-focused podcast to consider is “The Geek in Review." In this podcast you’ll learn about emerging issues in legal information and knowledge management from Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert.

If one of your goals is to learn how to run your law firm more efficiently and effectively, then "the Law Firm Autopilot." is the podcast for you. In it, attorney and law firm consultant Ernie Svenson covers all aspects of law practice management, from client intake and choosing legal technology for your firm to setting up a streamlined billing process.

In “The Law Entrepreneur” podcast, Neil Tyra covers the business end of law. You’ll hear from practicing lawyers and experts and will learn all you need to know about running a successful law firm.

If you’re looking to de-stress, then consider “The Resilient Lawyer” podcast. In each episode, attorney Jeena Cho shares tools and strategies for finding more balance, joy, and satisfaction in your professional and personal life.

Another podcast to consider is “The Jabot." In this podcast, Above The Law Senior Editor Kathryn Rubino focuses on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry.

If BigLaw is your thing, then you might want to subscribe to “Biglaw Book Of Business," a podcast that launched earlier this year. In each episode, Above The Law founder David Lat and Robert Kinney, Founder and President of Kinney Recruiting, discussing market analysis and notable lateral moves in large law firms.

Finally there’s Rochester’s very own “Real Life Law," a podcast hosted by attorneys Elizabeth Randisi and Meredith Lamb. In each episode they interview a special guest and discuss the ins and outs of practicing law and being a lawyer in Rochester.

So, no matter what your interest, there’s a podcast for you. They’re a great way to keep up to date on the issues that matter to you, so subscribe to a few that pique your interest. Then sit back, relax, and enjoy the show!

Search

disclaimer

This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.